The 2026 redistricting issues highlight the urgent need for lasting reform. While nonpartisan redistricting commissions are often suggested, they are not enough. True permanent solutions are clear. The mid-decade redistricting battles and changes in the Voting Rights Act lead to fewer competitive U.S. House districts, potentially shrinking to around 22. This constitutes less than 5% of the districts, worsening political polarization and limiting true electoral competition to primary elections. Extreme candidates are more likely to win, as compromise becomes rare, thus increasing gridlock.
The Supreme Court’s removal of legal checks on partisan and racial gerrymandering complicates restoring fair elections. Nonpartisan redistricting commissions are proposed as a solution. Currently, 10 states use these commissions for congressional redistricting, with varying success. Some states employ them in advisory roles or as backups. Despite improvements over legislative-drawn maps, they still possess partisan bias and procedural issues. Courts have invalidated some maps as gerrymanders. This may result from human bias in power allocation.
A deeper issue is demographic sorting. Democrats and minorities tend to cluster in cities, while Republicans are sparser elsewhere. Single-member districts overlaying these clusters result in ‘unintentional gerrymandering,’ which particularly affects Democrats. Balancing equal-population districts with competitive and minority representation goals is challenging.
Ceasing to draw districts entirely could offer a solution. Proportional representation can replace single-member, winner-takes-all elections. Under winner-takes-all, 51% of the vote garners all the power, leaving 49% with none. In proportional representation, a group with 30% of the vote receives about 30% representation, reflecting true public opinion.
This method is common in democracies worldwide. In the U.S., ranked choice voting achieves proportional representation, allowing voters to rank candidates. Used in places like New York City and Maine, ranked choice voting supports fairer outcomes. Some cities implement single transferable vote, allowing multiple candidates for several seats.
“Single transferable vote is used in Minneapolis, Portland, and Amherst, proving effective for racial and ethnic minority representation.”
The Fair Representation Act proposes a path for the U.S. House to use single transferable vote. In states with five or fewer House seats, it abolishes districts to reduce gerrymandering. Larger states would use few multimember districts for elections, maintaining minimal and fair district drawing.
Proportional representation benefits both major parties in areas where they are in minority. It mitigates ‘spoiler’ concerns, supporting less-known candidates and increasing competition and turnout.
If Democrats regain Congress, reform should be a focus. Addressing demographic sorting concerns, the shift from single-member districts serves their long-term interests and those of the broader public.
Steven Mulroy, an expert in election law, emphasizes this approach in his book “Rethinking U.S. Election Law: Unskewing The System.” Mulroy is a former voting section litigator and law professor, now serving as district attorney in Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee.
© 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution is prohibited.